The president during his second term is engaged in a series of sweeping changes both in the White House and in other iconic buildings of Washington. In this context, he has promised to erect a “Trump Arch”, a giant arch – the monument that traditionally commemorated the victories of generals and emperors -, in Washington.
Like Trump’s other ambitious projects—the construction of a grand ballroom at the White House and the complete renovation of the Kennedy Center for the Arts—it comes with a host of questions—architectural, historical, practical, and political.
The plan calls for an arch about 72 meters high, which is taller than the Arc de Triomphe in Paris and the Monumento a la Revolución in Mexico, the tallest arch in the world. The structure is intended to commemorate the 250th anniversary of the United States, but its scale and location have already caused controversy.
An arch that will change the landscape of the capital
The proposed site is on Memorial Circle, at the base of the Arlington Memorial Bridge, where it connects the Lincoln Memorial to Arlington National Cemetery.
Architects and historians point out that this particular line of sight has special symbolism: the bridge was designed as a link of reconciliation between North and South after the Civil War, while the landscape allows unobstructed views between the two monuments.
An arch of this size, placed in the center of a roundabout, is estimated to visually dominate the space, changing the relationship between the monuments and limiting the view of pedestrians and visitors. Some experts who initially welcomed the idea of a new monument now say, speaking to CNN, that the proposed scale is disproportionate to the specific site.
Questions about flight safety
The concern is not limited only to the aesthetic or historical part. The area is right next to the approach path of Ronald Reagan National Airport, where aircraft fly low following the Potomac River as they are prohibited from flying over the National Mall and the Pentagon.
According to a report by the American network CBS, the proposed arch will be located at a point where planes descend at an altitude of about 150 meters, which limits the safety margins in an already very dense airspace.
In January 2025, there was a plane crash over the Potomac where a helicopter collided with a passenger plane, killing 67 people. However, no official Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) assessment of the project has been released so far.
Legal and institutional barriers
Unlike interventions involving White House buildings, which the US president has already largely remodeled in the last year, this construction requires approvals from federal commissions and environmental and historical assessments, processes that also include public consultation.
Lawyers and experts cited by the Washington Post estimate that the project is almost certain to face appeals, especially from organizations active in preserving the capital’s historic landscapes.
At the same time, neither the final cost, nor who will finance the project, nor the timetable have yet been clarified, although Trump has stated that he would like work to begin soon.
The French influence
As a model, the US president has projected the French Arc de Triomphe in Paris, with his own, of course, aspiring to surpass it in size “by a lot”. It is typical that Trump has once again drawn “inspiration” from France.
In 2017, during his first term, he attended the Bastille Day military parade in Paris with Emmanuel Macron. According to US media, he returned impressed, telling his colleagues that it was one of the most impressive spectacles he had seen and immediately asked for a similar parade to be organized in the US – but “bigger”.
The idea was met with strong opposition at the Pentagon at the time, with military officials warning that such displays of power were more reminiscent of authoritarian regimes than American tradition. The plans were abandoned, among other reasons, due to high costs.
However, last summer, Trump’s dream of a large military parade in Washington came true, but it was not the imposing spectacle he had envisioned, and was accompanied by limited participation and simultaneous protests in several cities.
A divisive work
However, with reference to the arch, some historians believe that such a monument could find a place in the city. The question, however, is where and on what scale. For critics of the plan, the question is not whether an arch is a good idea, but whether such a massive monument should be placed in a space that already carries enormous historical and symbolic weight.
For Trump, by contrast, the answer seems simple: “I’d like it to be the biggest of them all,” he said recently. Whether that ambition will eventually become a permanent fixture of the Washington landscape remains to be seen.
